and this is "fox news sunday." japan is rocked by a huge earthquake, and then a devastating tsunami. that killed hundreds and damaged two nuclear plants. we'll have the latest from japan and talk with a nuclear safety expert. then congress deadlocks over the budget as gas prices climb. we'll discuss both with the senate top republican mitch mcconnell. two budget hawks sell a bipartisan plan to cut the deficit. we'll sit down with senators mark warner and saxby chambliss. plus, the latest on libya. what can and should president obama do to oust muammar gaddafi?

we'll ask our sunday panel. and our power player of the week. the undercover provacateur strikes again. all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again, from fox news in washington. here is the latest on the situation in japan. officials there now fear more than 10,000 people may have been killed in the earthquake and the tsunami. they are fighting partial meltdown at two nuclear reactors and more than 170,000 people have been evacuated from around the plants as a precaution. for more, we turn to fox news correspondent greg palkot who is in japan. greg? >> reporter: chris, strong words from japanese prime minister naoto kan calling the situation around the earthquake and the tsunami that the country got hit with on friday the worst crisis in japanese history, calling on his country to face it with determination.

one part of that crisis the stricken nuclear power plant in the area of the natural disaster. sea water had to be pumped in to the second reactor today to try to cool things down. authorities say they have the situation under control. but the evacuation of citizens from the immediate area around the reactor continues, as does the screening for possible radiation poisoning. dozens of people reportedly are testing positive for that. this as the overall scope of the disaster becomes even more clear. we went up and down the coastline today and heard from people who saw as they try to put together the shattered bits of their lives. in fact, they also had to deal with some aftershocks, a big one felt by this crew this morning. this also as help is on the way, including from the united states. the carrier uss ronald reagan off the coast of japan may be reporting today that 20 helicopters brought aid from that ship. part of a multipronged effort,

not just from the united states, but from the international community to help japan at this very troubled time. chris? >> chris: greg palkot reporting from japan. greg, thanks for that. joining us now is joe sorinsioni who is an expert on nuclear issues. japanese officials are now talking about fighting two partial meltdowns in nuclear reactors. briefly, what is going on and potentially how dangerous? >> this is an unprecedented crisis, it's extremely serious. one reactor has had half the core exposed already. this is the one they're flooding with sea water in a desperate effort to prevent it from a complete meltdown. they lost control of a second reactor next to it, a partial meltdown and there is actually a third reactor at a related site 20-kilometers away they have also lost control over. they have multiple reactor crisis at the same time. we have never had a situation like this before. >> chris: what does it mean if you have a meltdown of the

nuclear core? >> the worst case scenario is that the fuel rods fused together, the temperatures get so hot that they melt together in a radioactive molten moose that bursts through the containment mechmisms and is exposed to the outside. it spews radioactivity in the ground and the air and the water. some of the radioactivity could carry in the atmosphere to the west coast of the united states. >> chris: really? thousands of miles across the pacific? >> chernobyl, which happened 25 years ago, the radioactivity spread around the entire northern hemisphere. it depends how many of the cores melt down and how successful they are on containing it once the disaster happens. >> chris: now you talk about the possibility of a huge exposure. the japanese officials so far have evacuated people 12-miles from the plants. is that far enough? >> not under a meltdown scenario. you have seen the evacuation radiuss extend as the crisis has developed. first it was two, then it was six, now it's 12.

we're told by reporters on the ground that 50-kilometers out they're being blocked from access. the effective evacuation area is larger than the official one declared. >> chris: put this in context. japanese officials had been rating this as a four on a scale that i didn't know existed of 1 to 7 for nuclear events. how does the situation in japanese as it now stands compare to three mile island in this country in 1979 and chernobyl, that you mentioned, in russia in 1986? >> if it were to stop right now, 4 might be a fair characterization of this, a local event without significant injury. if it continues it will certainly get to five, which is the three mile island category of a serious event. we almost lost three mile island and lot went meltdown. it stopped at the last minute. that is the situation we're fighting to maintain in japan. if there is a meltdown, that puts in a 6 or a 7, that is a chernobyl category, serious

nuclear incident with potential for large scale loss of life. >> chris: what are we talking about? 12 hours, this hours, what are the keys if it becomes a serious accident or catastrophe? >> we're in a key period now. the next 12 to 24 hours will tell us if the japanese officials will get control back over the reactors or it's gone, it's lost, the pumping of the sea water into reactor number one is a last ditch effort to try to stop it before it's too late. if they can succeed and hold it for the next 24 hours or, so then the reactor cores will cool down and will be implied path to containing this disaster. >> chris: we're going to have to leave it there. we want to thank you for coming in and helping to shed light, help us understand what is happening in japan right now. thank you, sir. >> thank you, chris. >> chris: joining us now from his home state of kentucky is the senate's top republican mitch mcconnell. senator, let's start with the very serious situation in japan. you and frankly politicians from both parties have

recently been sut poring the idea of nuclear power plants. you called it a critical component, comprehensive energy plan. based on what you're hearing, are you having second thoughts about that? >> i think what we ought to do right now is concentrate on trying to help our japanese friends after this disaster. this discussion reminds me somewhat of the conversations that were going on after the b.p. oil spill last year. i don't think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making american domestic policy. i think we ought to just concentrate on helping the japanese in any way that we can. >> chris: i certainly understand that. and nobody is asking you, but just as a human reaction, isn't this going to make it harder for nuclear power plants to be located -- aren't just american citizens going to look at it and say not in my backyard? >> we certainly had that experience after the three mile island issue in 1979.

that's a fairly common reaction to catastrophes. >> chris: and your thoughts about that? >> my thought about it is, we ought not to make american and domestic policy based on an event that happened in japan and we ought to concentrate on helping the japanese get past this catastrophe. >> chris: all right. let's take a look at the budget. as if you didn't have enough problems. house republicans, house republicans have proposed another short-term continuing resolution. this time for three weeks with $6 billion in cuts to keep the government running. first of all, will that pass? and what do you think of the idea of some republicans to attach riders that would cut off all funding for planned parenthood or all funding for implementing obama healthcare reform? >> first, with regard to the short-term c.r., i don't think we ought to let the government shutdown. i think it will include $6 billion in cuts so we're on a path, a slow path but a path

nevertheless to get to the $61 billion in reductions of this year's spending that house republicans were able to send over to us. so, i think it should pass. and will pass. the second issue is related to policy. these are always controversial. there are people that want policy riders on appropriation bills, people that want them off. this will all be worked out in some kind of negotiating process as we go forward, trying to get an ultimate solution to the funding of this year's budget. we've got lots bigger financial problems than just this year's budget. but we're working on this year at the moment. >> chris: but i take it from what you are saying you would oppose any riders being attached to this three-week extension? >> well, the house is going to produce a three-weeks extension. i support it supported -- i expect to support it and i expect it to pass. they will make a decision, since it initiates in the house to include any riders or not. this is not the ultimate solution for this year. that will be negotiated in the

next couple of weeks. >> chris: ten of your fellow senate republicans are now saying that they are going to oppose any bill that comes before the senate that doesn't include significant spending cuts. this comes at a time when the top democratic leader in the senate, harry reid, said that your party, both in the house and the senate is ignoring voters' top concern. let's watch. >> the one thing that the republicans have not talked about is the one thing that the american people care about more than anything else. that is, jobs. in fact, it's the direct opposite. we're destroying jobs. >> chris: senator, will the g.o.p., at least in the senate, block all government business that does not include spending cuts? and secondly, what about harry reid's contention that besides the question, which is arguable about spending cuts, that the republicans are ignoring putting people back to work? >> well, if government spending would create jobs,

we'd be in the middle of a boom, because we have added $3 trillion to the national debt in the last two years with the government stimulus efforts. so cutting spending and job creation are not mutually exclusive. in fact, we believe reducing government spending is helpful to get the private sector going again. with regard to the procedure of going to bills, i think it's a good idea to go to bills in the senate, we can offer amendments on any subject. we've had a couple of bills up this year that were not directly related to spending. but my members have been offering spending reduction amendments. so we intend to continue to focus on reducing government spending no, matter what bill happens to be before the senate. >> chris: but does that mean, then, that republicans would filibuster an unrelated bill if it didn't include spending cuts? >> no, it means we get on an unrelated bill and we'd offer amendments related to spending and debt. because we do think that's

what we ought to be talking about. but under the senate rule, you can offer amendments that are unrelated to the underlying bill and we intend to do that. >> chris: but i'm saying you wouldn't then fill buster the bill? >> no, i mean if it's a bill that has some merit there is no particular reason to keep it from going forward. but we'd try to add on to it measures that we think address the problems of spending and debt. >> chris: understood. the government will reach its debt limit sometime either in april or may. and this week, you challenged president obama to lead a bipartisan effort to deal with the debt problem. you said this in an interview with the "wall street journal" -- "unless we do something important about the debt, i don't believe there will be a single republican senator voting to raise the debt ceiling." senator, what does that mean? that there has to be a deal on entitlements and taxes or you are going to vote against extending the debt limit? >> what it means is this: we have a $14 trillion debt.

$14 trillion. that's the size of our economy, which begins to make us look a lot like greece. over and above that, we have over $50 trillion in commitments we have made that we cannot keep on entitlement programs. very popular programs like social security, medicare, medicaid. we aren't doing anything to bend the curve. raising the debt creeling is the perfect opportunity to do something important about the subject being raised by raising the debt ceiling, which is our debt. and so what i've said is that i don't intend to support raising the debt ceiling and i don't believe any senate republicans do, unless we do something important related to spending and debt. i think the administration understands that, that we're just not going to bring up the debt ceiling and everybody say all right. it's going to have to carry something with it that the markets, foreign countries, the american people believe is a credible effort to begin to get a handle on spending and

debt. >> chris: but i'm just trying to clear up. when you say "do something important," does that mean that you would have begun negotiations or does that mean that you'd have a final deal? >> what it means is i'm not going to negotiate the deal here on your show. but we all have a sense of how you could get at the problem. the administration understands that we understand it, and we need to come together and figure out what we can do and add it to the debt ceiling. >> chris: but i do want to ask you about this aspect of the debt ceiling. speaker boehner said the other day that to fail to raise the debt would be irresponsible. this is how he put it. "if we were to fail to increase the debt limit, we would send our economy into a tailspin." i guess the question is he seems to be saying no matter what, we've got to increase the debt ceiling. >> well, as you know, i was talking about the senate. there are 53 democrats and 47 republicans. my prediction is not a single one of the 47 republicans will vote to raise the debt ceiling

unless it includes with it some credible effort to do something about our debt. now, the house is another matter. i'm just predicting that the senate republican votes. i don't believe senate republicans are going to vote to raise the debt ceiling. the democrats can raise it themselveses if they choose to and try to do nothing whatsoever about the problem. i think to get any of the 47 republicans, you've got to do something credible that the markets believe is credible, that the american people believe is credible, the foreign countries believe is credible. in addition to simply just raising the debt ceiling. >> chris: new subject. your party is beginning to hammer president obama for rising gas prices and calling for an all of the above strategy. now on friday, the president noted that domestic oil production this past year is higher than it was over the last seven years. let's take a look.

>> any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite but it doesn't match up with reality. >> chris: question: is president obama to blame for rising gas prices? >> well, he certainly participated, because in spite of what you just heard him say, oil production is up slightly principally because of actions taken by the previous administration. but this administration in the last two years has been shutting down wells. senator vitter from louisiana had a whole list of rigs in the gulf of mexico. where they have been moved around the world. bureaucratic making it very difficult to get permits there has been a conscious effort to make it difficult to drill in this country. both on shore and offshore by the bureaucrats who have been appointed by this administration and president. noting that there has been a slight uptick in production doesn't get to the heart of the problem. 60% of our oil is coming from

overseas. that's unacceptable. we have vast reserves in this country. particularly in alaska. my goodness, when are we going to use our own reserves and quit depending so much on areas of the world that don't like us? >> chris: senator, we have less than two minutes left and i want to get into one last area with you; that is, libya. it's beginning to look at the gaddafi regime with the superior fire power is beginning to turn the tide on the rebels. yesterday, we had the arab league calling on the international community to impose a no-fly zone. should the u.s. intervene militarily and should we be willing to do whatever it takes to oust gaddafi? >> it certainly is note-worthy that the arab league passed a recommendation for no-fly zone. that would have included syria, by the way. so, if this regime is that unacceptable to the arab league, it tells you that it's a pretty unacceptable regime. having said that, the question is how can you be helpful?

how can the united states be helpful? the secretary of state and secretary of defense are looking at all the options. one thing i've suggested that might be considered, it wouldn't involve the use of u.s. personnel or u.s. airplanes would be arming the insurgents. i know the secretary of state is apparently going to meet with the insurgents this week. hopefully they'll be making some recommendations. this is not an easy conclusion to reach. but it is noteworthy that the arab league thinks we ought to have a no-fly zone. >> chris: and we have less than 30 seconds left. as the leader of republicans in the senate, it doesn't sound like you're willing to commit at this point that you favor a no-fly zone. >> i think we ought to continue to monitor the situation. i don't think i'm going to reach a conclusion in the middle of this conflict. that's why we have an administration. that's why we have a secretary of state and secretary of defense. i know they are on top of this and monitoring it. we're looking forward to seeing what their recommendations are. >> chris: senator mcconnell, we'll have to

leave it there. we want to thank you so much for coming in today. it's always a pleasure to talk with you. >> thank you, chris. >> chris: bipartisan effort to find an answer to the nation's growing and dangerous debt problem. we talk to two senators behind the effort right after the break. we're america's natural gas. and here's what we did today in homes all across america: we created the electricity that powered the alarm clocks and brewed the coffee. we heated the bathwater and gave kelly a cleaner ride to school.

cooked the cube steaks and steamed the veggies. entertained dad, and mom, and a neighbor or two. kept watch on the house when they slept. and tomorrow we could do even more. we're cleaner, domestic, abundant and ready now. we're america's natural gas. the smarter power today. learn more at anga.us. but when i was diagnosed with prostate cancer... i needed a coach. our doctor was great, but with so many tough decisions i felt lost. unitedhealthcare offered us a specially trained rn who helped us weigh and understand all our options. for me cancer was as scary as a fastball is to some of these kids. but my coach had hit that pitch before. turning data into useful answers. we're 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. curtis: welcome back to geico gecko: caller steve, go right ahead. steve: yeah, um, i just got a free rate quote on geico.com, saved a ton, and it only took me 5 minutes and 12 seconds! steve: i was wondering, is that some sort of record?

gecko: that's a good question. let's have a look. curtis: mmmm, not quite. someone's got you beat by 8 seconds. gecko: still, i mean, that's... that's quite fast! steve: well, what if i told you i only used one hand? anncr: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. >> chris: while the president and congressional leaders continue their deadlock over what to do about the nation's debt, two senators are working on a

bipartisan plan to cut $4 trillion over the next decade. we're joined by virginia democrat mark warner, and georgia republican saxby chambliss. senators, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thanks, chris. >> chris: the key to your plan, you say, that everybody has got to have some skin in the game. for you as a republican, senator chambliss, that means agreeing to the politically unpalatable increases in revenue. are you willing to increase taxes? >> well, we can increase revenues without increasing taxes, per se, chris. as a matter of fact, that our proposal does is to reduce the effective and direct tax rates all the way across the board. and we do that by making a significant reform in the tax code. every time we made a significant reform in the tax code, whether it was under reagan in '86 or bush in 2001, what we've seen is reduction in rates and increase in revenue. >> chris: what you're basically talking about is

doing away with about $1 trillion in deductions that are currently in the tax system. grover norquist head of the conservative group americans for tax reform says what you are talking about means that you're still breaking your pledge. he is obviously going to hold this against all republicans who support it. breaking your pledge not to raise taxes. >> let me just say we're joined on my side in these discussions by senator tom coburn of oklahoma, and mike craipo of idaho. the three of us have just been designated by national journal as three of the most, if not the most conservative members of the united states senate. we don't believe in raising taxes. but let me tell you, chris. this is such a massive problem, as senator mcconnell just stated, a $14 trillion debt that if we don't get our arms around it now, then we're going to become a second tier nation. and we cannot allow that to happen. so it's imperative that we put everything on the table for discussion. i don't know where we are

going to wind up. we're not there yet. but if you look at the debt commission report, you have to address spending. we have to reduce spending in a major way. you've got to address entitlements. we've got to reform entitlements in a major way. and you've got to look at revenue and reform our complicated tax code in a major way. when you do that, everybody does have that skin in the game and everybody gets their score a little bit. >> chris: for you, having skin in the game, means you have to take the politically unpalatable choice of cutting enentitlements. are you willing to scale back on benefit for social security and medicare? >> we have to do this. otherwise if we focus the discussion as we have so far on the back and forth in congress, all you're cutting is 12% of the federal budget, domestic discretionary spending. you are seeing programs being perhaps eliminated because you

focus the discussion only in that area. you have to put everything out. that means saxby andly probably take arrows. he on the republican side because we're willing to reform some of the entitlement issues but every day that we punt, every day we don't act, we add $4 billion to our national debt. at some point, we're going to have to pay that back. why not now go ahead and paut plan in place -- we didn't get in the situation overnight. we're not going to dig out in a single year. but if we put a plan in place, the markets will respond and i think the economy will be better, but that is going to require a little give from both sides. >> chris: the democratic leader in the senate, harry reid, said this recently -- "social security has contributed not a single penny to the deficit, so we can talk about entitlements as long as you eliminate social security from the discussion." first of all, isn't that wrong? social security is already paying out more than it takes in and that is just going to get worse as the baby-boomers retire. isn't that as a fact wrong that it doesn't contribute the

deficit? secondly, can social security really be off the table? >> well, chris, until recently, social security has been running major surpluses. in effect, we've been borrowing from social security to finance the government. now that's clicked over on an annual basis, as you said we're paying out more than we're taking in. our our proposal puts out is not taking social security proceeds any longer and paying off the deficit. it's saying let's make sure social security is solvent for the next 75 years. >> chris: raising retirement age. >> my sense is that remember social security was put in place back in the '30s. they set 65 as the period of the start because life expectancy was 64. now americans, thank goodness, are living toward closer to age 80. and the idea that we're going to slowly raise the retirement age a couple of years over the next 40 years, nobody, you, me, saxby, we won't be

effected at all. folks under 35 might see a slight bump in their age increase, but frankly a lot of folks under 35 don't even think there will be social security if we don't do something. >> chris: senator, how close are you to an actual comprehensive plan? there is talk that what you are thinking about is a set of specific proposals that you would come up with targets for spending, for revenue, for entitlements. and that if they are not met by subsequent congresss there would be automatic triggers to cut spending or increase revenue. is that where you are headed? >> first of all, what we've got to do is when we see an increase in revenues coming in to washington, we have to make sure that congress doesn't have the ability to spend that, because history dictates to us if we have revenues coming in that are uncontrolled, that is what is going to happen. what we have to make sure of and frankly one of the major issues that we're dialoguing about in our group now is what do we do with the revenues? we need to make sure that we

commit the most significant part of those revenues to tax reduction, tax rate reduction. get our corporate rate down to where we are competitive in the world marketplace. get our individual rates down to where people actually do pay less in taxes. if you are one of the 70% that don't itemize, you will certainly pay significant amount less in taxes. and then we've got to take a portion of that, the debt commission said somewhere between 20%, 15%, 10% and apply it to this $14 trillion debt. otherwise, if we don't commit some of it to that, we're going to be stuck with the $14 trillion debt and it's only going to increase. that's not right. >> chris: so senator warner, how close are you to an actual plan, and for instance, because we talked about this a lot with senator mcconnell, will you offer it as part of the debate over raising the debt limit in the next couple of months? >> i think we want to make sure we get it right more than some arbitrary timeline.

i really think i want to command saxby chambliss. he has ban great partner. we have been saying we ought to do this, we shouldn't allow the debt commission, the so-called simpson-bowles go for naught. we're willing to link arms and we have other colleagues that are working with us. you are seeing other members in both parties say we need this long-term solution. i get a little worried when you start tying it to the debt limit vote, because as chairman bernardini of the federal -- because chairman richard bernanke said if we were to default on america's ability to pay, you could see financial crisis like we saw in -- >> scott: but are we talking about this year or next year. >> if it's next year, you get into a presidential year and then the issue would be punted until 2013. we may not have that long of a time before the financial markets say we'll either no longer want to buy american debt or charge such a higher

interest rate on it, it would have negative effect on the economy. >> chris: we have less than a minute less. but whatever you come up with, you have to sell it to congress. you're one of speaker boehner's closest friends i know here in town. would he back a compromise that included any revenue increases and do you think the tea party freshmen would? >> it's not a matter of is it going to get done, are they going to back it, it's a question of do we do it on our terms? at the end of the day, we have to have within the discussion, within the room, a discussion between the white house and house republicans and democrats. john boehner is a great leader and about the business of bringing our fiscal house back in order. he gets it. i think at the end of the day we'll be able to develop a plan, we've got to develop a plan that does sit within if parameters of the house republicans and the democrats as well as the senate republicans, democrats and the

white house. >> chris: on that optimistic note, we'll leave it there. senator chambliss, senator warner, we want to thank you both so much for coming in. we'll stay on top of the plan. good luck. >> thank you. >> chris: up next, a possible nuclear meltdown. we'll ask our sunday panel what the disaster in japan could mean for our nation's energy policy. all the new tech products you need. and they're all looking for the same thing. ♪ the one place that makes technology easy. staples. with highly-trained tech experts and expanded tech centers, staples makes finding the right technology just the way you want it. easy. easy to buy. easy to fix. easy to save. staples. that was easy.

easy to buy. easy to fix. easy to save.

>> chris: you are looking at the alarming video of the explosion saturday at a

nuclear power plant in japan that has raised the stakes in that country's disaster even higher. it's time now for our sunday group. bill kristol of "the weekly standard." jeff zeleny, the "new york times" national political correspondent. and a first-timer here. former white house press secretary dana perino. and "new york post" columnist kirsten powers. so japanese officials now trying to prevent multiple meltdown, radiation leaks, evacuation of more than 100,000 people. bill, at a time when democrats and republicans were finally getting together and supporting nuclear power as safe, clean, nonpolluting energy, and president obama had $36 billion in loan credits in his 2012 budget to promote more plants, what happens now to the domestic industry? >> we can probably save $36 billion in the budget. it's a bit of a setback from

the nuclear power in the u.s.. i'll go out on a limb and make that prediction. people say will we build new plant? 25% of the electric currently comes from the nuclear power plants there are 104 in the united states, two of them around the coast in california. very earthquake resistant, but there could be a tsunami there. it sounds like the tsunami did the most damage in japan. it's how resistant they are to damage. on the other hand, the alarming fears whether or not, certainly if they come to fruition and let's hope they don't, it's obviously a setback to nuclear power and makes stronger the case going after natural gas and oil domestically. >> chris: jeff when you hear -- and we don't know how bad it is going to be. but when you just hear the japanese situation mentioned in the same sentence with three mile island and chernobyl. after three mile island we had a 30-year moratorium on nuclear power in this country is that what we are headed for again? >> certainly, the president has angered even members of his own party embracing a

nuclear power and the possibilities of that even during the presidential campaign. but it's, i mean bill is right. i mean if something major happens there, obvious it will stop it. even if, you know, this does not turn out to be as bad as it sounds initially, i think it is going to make people very nervous about this. the white house right now is focused on this. but it's really concerned about high gas prices, of course. this all ties together. so the president will have to decide what, you know, if he should embrace nuclear power or not in the short term it's going to -- >> scott: nobody is embracing nuclear -- >> scott: no. >> no one is embracing the nuclear power this week. >> no, this is uncertain what it will be. >> switch to that suggest with you. even before the events in japan, president obama scheduled a news conference on friday to talk about the

higher gas prices as republicans are beginning to really come out again as they did in 2008 when gas prices spiked. well, they came against him but also against democrats in january for resisting domestic oil production and callerring if -- calling for all of the above. how potent is this issue? >> gas prices can make or break elections there is no doubt about it. what is interesting to me is how the administration allows president obama to say things that are so quickly proven false. he stood up at a press conference on friday saying my policy has been great and i'm actually encouraging production. but that can't possibly be true. it doesn't matter -- well, production is up, but it's in spite of his policies. i have takes years before president clinton agrees on friday. almost the same time that president obama is speaking president clinton says it's ridiculous to continue a mother moriam in the gulf. i don't think it's so much partisan where if you go to america where you are on a

fixed budget and the gas prices go up and you have to decide whether or not you will put the money toward "x" or "y" and maybe it means you don't go on a family trip or something like that, it does make a huge difference. a lot of small businesses, very small margin of profits and gas prices mean a big deal to them. that is why the white house is trying to get in front of this but are standing in the way of their rhetoric. >> he is on the defensive about this. so i think he did come out to try to make a case that he is on top of it, and that everything is okay. he can say whatever he wants. the proof is in the pudding. if the gas prices continue to go up and there is not enough supply, people will continue to drumbeat for more drilling and it doesn't matter what he says. can i say just say something on the reactor? >> you bet. >> thank you. i just want to say that when you hear "meltdown" it sounds very scary. the reality is they are able to contain it, at least at this point. so i think there will be a lot

of people, especially antinuclear people who will jump on this and try to exploit it, but we have to see what happens. wait a week out and see. the organization has come out and said they don't think there will be any negative health impact from this. a lot of environmental people are pro-nuclear. it may be something that may not get scuddled depending how it actually plays out. >> chris: i'm glad you added that. let's go back to the oil prices. the president did make a case and said production is the highest in seven years and said they have begun issuing deepwater drilling permits again after the b.p. disaster. he talked about increased exploration and development in alaska and the atlantic. everybody is shaking their head at me. go ahead. >> well, there is an awful lot of -- if you talk to people in the oil production business they would like to explore a

lot of places they're not currently being permitted to explore. on the other end, it's not clear -- that's why the oil prices are up. huge inflation, part of that is the oil price inflation. so, you know, i think we shouldn't overreact. there is a huge issue, july, august of 2008. by election date, drill, baby, drill, was not carrying a lot of states for patrick john mcca. i'm not sure they will be wise to demagogue gas prices. they can make case that gas prices are on the way. >> it will be interesting to see how the gas prices are a political issue down the summer, to see what the president does short-term. when he was a presidential candidate he proposed increase in the gas tax. he called it a gimmick. i'm watching to see if the white house very concerned about this will come up with any short-term gimmicks to use the word of his of their own.

this will be a weight around their neck probably the rest of the year. >> chris: what gimmicks can they do? i don't think raising gas prices, gas taxes is a good solution. >> no, it's not a good solution. but one thing they are talking about is the raising the reserves and things. we'll see what they do. but in the short-term, there is very little they can do. bill is right, it's probably not wise for republicans to demagogue this. this is going to be a problem for the person in charge. that is him. >> chris: the final 30 seconds. you shake your head at the idea of tapping the strategic petroleum reform. >> we've been down this path before. some people accuse president clinton of trying to help al gore in the 2000 campaign releasing the oil to affect price. it doesn't work. the reserve is there for emergency purposes. we're not necessarily in an emergency right now. we could be. what we need is a longer-range energy policy. i read yesterday and i didn't know about this -- representative nunez of california has a roadmap for

america's energy future. what we need is something like saxby chambliss and mark warner have done, come together from two parties and get something comp hencive to deal with this long-term. >> chris: no, i think we should just keep putting i have and wring our hands when there is a crisis. >> that's what we've been doing for decades. >> chris: that's what we've done for 30, 40 years. thank you, panel. we'll take a break. when we come back, muammar gaddafi begins to turn the tide in libya. should the u.s. get more involved? a company-wide memo about the meeting? uh-huh. this is the meeting. we are the company. don't sweat it. i just switched us to sprint, so e-mail, web...on 4g... it's all unlimited. [ cellphone buzzes you just texted me to read the memo? unlimited text too. we really need you on this conference call. rick, it's lyle. rickster? i'm here. there he is! [ male announcer switch to sprint and get unlimited 4g data on a wide range of devices. sprint 4g, it's business without limits. trouble hearing on the phone? only on the now network. visit sprintrelay.com.

>> woman: good night, gluttony-- a farewell long awaited. good night, stuffy. >> ( yawning ) >> good night, outdated. >> ( click ) >> good night, old luxury and all of your wares. good night, bygones everywhere. >> ( engine revs ) >> good morning, illumination. good morning, innovation. good morning, unequaled inspiration. >> ( heartbeats ) [ male announcer how can power consumption in china, impact wool exports from new zealand, textile production in spain, and the use of medical technology in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 80% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing.

>> chris: still to come, our power player of the week. >> we thought it would be fun for a youtube video and we'd get them to say something silly. >> chris: that was james o'keefe in 2009, marveling of the impact of his undercover acorn videos. now he has a new scout. stay tuned. our panel will be right back.

across the board, we are slowly tightening the noose on gaddafi. he is more and more isolated internationally, both through sanctions, as well as an arms embargo. >> chris: that was president obama on friday, claiming some gains in the effort to oust libyan leader muammar gaddafi. but reports from the front

lines tell a different story. we're back now with the panel. so yesterday, the arab league called on the united nations to impose a no-fly zone and said that gaddafi, the gaddafi regime has lost its sovereignty. bill, what are the chances that that will increase the likelihood of the international community intervening militarily? >> i think no one will do anything unless the united states does anything. it's humiliating for the arab league, which has always been dictators to now be further along in calling for serious actions to remove gaddafi, enemy of ours with american blood on his hands. presumably we start a nuclear program and start terrorism if he survives this. it's humiliating for them to be ahead of us. the obama administration feels it needs the cover of a bunch of arab dictators calling for us to intervene against this terrible dick dater. -- dictator. i'm for it if it helps the obama administration do

something but we need to do something. >> chris: let me ask about that. your sense to whether it does provide the international cover for the obama administration and the other western countries. the u.n. isn't going to do anything so russia and china with possible vetoes but nato would ask with support of arab league. >> it proceeds some cover and encourages the administration to ask. it seemed to me like he was saying imposing a no-fly zone would be easier than before. he still thinks it's unwise but it seems to me that the administration, the president is inching closer to do so but will look for every possible exit strategy to not do it. but i think the coming week is going to be for a critical in the period of seeing what he is going to do. i'm not sure that the president is eager. he is definitely not eager to involve american pilots in this. they are still stressing how difficult it will be. a tough decision for him. i think he will do everything

he can to not go down that path. >> chris: let me follow up on that with you, dana, because i think it certainly seemed to me as someone who watched the president's news conference on friday he was still very unconvinced about the effectiveness, the need. i thought it was remarkable where people are being slaughtered to say i have to analyze the cost-benefit relationship. is he being cautious or is he being timid? >> it's so confusing. hard to say. you don't know what his strategy is. the sound bite at the beginning of the segment he said, "slowly tightening the noose." this week when his national intelligence director clapper said gaddafi might prevail. that signals might not be there for you. an admission that the person powers aren't able to do anything. i find it odd that we had tunisia, bahrain, algeria, egypt, all go through their struggles and never call for

u.n. security resolution. now we have libya and we need united nations. >> chris: we weren't getting militarily involved in the other countries. >> right but even before that someone said let's get together from civilian standpoint to help them build up their democracies. our ambassador to the united nations susan rice missed the first two emergency meetings on libya. i think they are timid or cautious but one thing i know for sure it's confusing. >> chris: you know, kirsten, let me raise a question that may be part of a calculus for the president. given the advantage that gaddafi has -- for a get about air power. in military experience, ammunition, artillery and tanks, even if you ground the jets, does that change the occasion? >> that is the question. can you achieve what you want to achieve just from the air? are we going to set ourselves up where we go in with air strikes and then suddenly it's no, now we have to send ground troops? i think that is what the administration is thinking

about. if you remember in 1986 when we went in and did limited airstrikes, we ended up killing 100 people in a suburb. different things happen that you don't always predict. i think the administration is being cautious. and i think rightfully cautious. they are seeing this as a person who supports humanitarian interventions. you don't like to see people being slaughtered but they also don't want to get us in a situation where an american pilot is shot down and held hostage there are all the other things that can happen. i think they rightfully want this to be more of a world community responding than just the u.s. >> chris: bill, let's talk about it. clearly you seem to favor the idea of military intervention. what happens if you impose the no-fly zone and it doesn't change the situation? >> at this point you have to do more than the no-fly zone. you have to say you have to stop and we'll use our efforts to stop him from stopping people moving east across the country. we might take out the ships in the administration or tanks in

the artillery. >> chris: are you saying as he starts to move, and he has taken some of the other towns on the way to bengaza, you're saying we would -- "we" being nato or the united states -- with fire from the air would take out the troops and prevent them from moving further? >> we should recognize the opposition government as bengazi and tell gaddafi at least we may not be able to remove him from part of the country he controls but we will not let him slaughter people and take control of the country. if he takes control of the country he'll restart terror activity and possibly restart nuclear program. it's unacceptable. the president of the united states has said gaddafi must go. how can you say that, say gaddafi must go, and then do nothing about it? it would be a horrible defeat, setback elsewhere in the middle east and a disaster have him back in charge. not just a humanitarian disaster, but a national strategic disaster have him back in charge of libya. >> chris: less than a minute left.

what does happen if gaddafi holds on the power and then slowly, brutally grinds down the rebels? what is the impact on the president and his president to appeal to the arab street? >> impact is quite severe and striking. he is already on a little thin ice, but more importantly, they do not -- he is going to follow the advice or judgment of defense secretary gates. they can do it, but it's not the wise thing to do. that is the most important voice in the president's ear. >> chris: thank you, panel. see you next week. don't forget to check out pam plus where the group picks right up with the discussion on the website, foxnewssunday.com. we promise we'll post the video before noon eastern time. up next, our power player of the week.

>> chris: whether you admire or condemn the taxes, there is no debating that undercover activist james o'keefe has taken on some big targets and come up with stunning results. once again, he is our power player of the week. >> i thought i'd be a funny youtube video and we'd get them to say something silly, you guys, that's cute. never in our wildest dreams did we imagine this. >> chris: that was james o'keefe in 2009. marveling at the impact of his undercover acorn videos that pushed congress to cut off federal funding. now he has struck again.

masterminding a sting of npr executives at what was a lunch with rich political donors that showed bias against the tea party. >> they're scary. >> chris: we wanted to find out what drives the 26-year-old o'keefe. who describe himself not as a conservative, but a progressive radical. what we discovered is an outrage with liberal hypocrisy. >> if you use their rules against them, you can really tease them and mock them and really destroy them. >> chris: as a student at rus gers he said he became fed up with political correctness, especially about race. so on st. patrick's day 2004 he met with an administrator to demand they stop serving lucky charms cereal with its irish leprechaun. >> as you can see, we're not all shoulder height. we have differences in height. >> they said yes. then i realize odd kay, now

i'm on to -- then i realized okay, i'm on to something. >> chris: four years ago he called planned parenthood offices and said he wanted to donate money to keep his children being affected by affirmative action. >> she said i could be a prostitute. i said what if i'm a pimp? what if there were 13-year-old girls involved? we upped the ante to make it more ridiculous. >> chris: o'keefe has had problems. last may he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for posing as a phone repairman to get in senator mary landrieu's office. but now he has a new scout. the head of npr was forced out in the latest scandal. congress may abridge what they

said was a secret post. o'keefe says his friends always tell him the next sting will never work. >> they'll never say yes. that's ridiculous. that's absurd. every time they say yes. people say you'll never do it again. i disagree. i think they will come with a new strategy and get them say yes. >> chris: o'keefe engineered undercover sting of public television executive and his groups says it will release that tape this week. that is it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday." captioned by closed captioning services, inc